Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9819529" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Sure, I grant that.That's why I drew the distinctions I drew. They clearly saw that the feedback on both Specialties and Proficiency Dice was bad. And eventually both were just dropped; the former disappeared entirely, much to the detriment of the game because they'd put all their eggs in that basket and couldn't come up with a replacement, while the latter became PB (hence why it starts at 2 instead of 1: it's an average 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, just rounded down instead of up.) The point was to call out how their preferences mattered in one case, and seemingly didn't matter in the other. That is what looks like design laziness, using the shield of "well people didn't approve of it so we got rid of it" only when it was convenient, and ignoring it pretty pointedly for extended periods when it wasn't convenient.If they'd given even one try at making the Sorcerer work, I wouldn't call it out so. But they didn't, and that choice directly led to both of those classes being clearly underpowered compared to their peers, especially the Wizard and Druid.You actually had to make sacrifices for your boons previously, and the specific nature of your patron mattered for what boons you could seek. That's a significant loss IMNSHO.They completely wasted nearly two whole years just on trying failed mechanic after failed mechanic on one class, the Fighter. If they were strapped for time and had insufficient staff, after two whole years, that begins to look like problems they knew were festering but chose not to address until it was too late. Problems that then directly hurt the expression of classes when the rubber hit the road and they could no longer dither about. That is why I say some degree of laziness seems present here. They knew they were on a finite timetable. They knew they could not wait forever. Yet for some things they literally only tried one single time and then completely gave up for public playtest, meaning you had half-baked (sub)classes that needed fixing in 5.5e...while also having several other things they kept trying to fix despite the clear and consistent "NO" feedback, wasting precious months of public playtesting time. Simultaneously frittering away time on issue after issue that then never went anywhere in the final release, while just instantly giving up on other things and having to rush to publication because they never tested anything else.Call it "poor time management". Call it "improper priorities". Whatever. "Design laziness" is pithy. Yes, it will always be somewhat incendiary. Sometimes words need to be forceful in order to make the point.</blockquote>

Verification